EU Ruling in "Out-of-Market" satellite case

Discussion in 'General Satellite Discussion' started by kenglish, Oct 4, 2011.

  1. kenglish

    kenglish Icon

    975
    2
    Oct 2, 2004
    Salt Lake...
  2. Nick

    Nick Charter Gold Club Member DBSTalk Club

    22,055
    270
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    This could be a harbinger of things to come...for the US.

    Also, of significance,
    Imagine, the European common market leadng the way in ending the monopolistic league cartels. Power to the people!

    It's 1776 all over again, but in the reverse.
     
  3. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,495
    452
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Well, not really. As the article explains:
    IMHO the EU's objective is to be more like pursuant our Constitution the feds regulating commerce between states and somewhat an attempt in the context of having rules like our Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the Constitution.

    On the other hand, IMHO the copyright issue Nick mentions - that the particular match or game itself "cannot be considered to be an author's intellectual creation" - has some potential ramifications if for no other reason than being able to use the logic the court followed to reach that decision.
     
  4. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,960
    2,288
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The EU decision is attempting to create a "United States of Europe" ... a similar ruling in the US would allow interstate competition (which we already have). Stations in different states are free to compete with each other within the licensing agreements they have signed with the source of their programming (network affiliation and syndication agreements). Satellite providers in the member states of Colorado and California are free to compete with cable providers also operating in various member states.

    The copyright and rights problems remain hurdles to overcome. One could remove all federal laws that permit rebroadcast of local channels in and outside of their own markets and still not have the "utopia" of being able to watch any channel from any market at any time. And when it comes to foreign carriers, the American versions of the major cable channels have only purchased rights to air that content within the US. Canadian channels have made similar limited rights purchases.

    I suppose one could have Congress write laws that further interfere with the free market, but it certainly doesn't sound American to me.
     
  5. kenglish

    kenglish Icon

    975
    2
    Oct 2, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    Are subscriptions to Bell (Canada) or Embratel (Spanish), or whatever, still "under the table"? At one time, I remember there being some flak over US residents subscribing.

    That's sort of what I'm talking about. Maybe soccer and such, which may be available on a "foreign" satellite, but DISH or DirecTV (or one of their suppliers) having rights to it.
     
  6. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,960
    2,288
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Correct ... DISH and DirecTV do not have the rights to distribute their US programming packages to Canada and Mexico, and the Canadian and Mexican services do not have the rights to deliver the channels they carry to the US. The companies only market their packages to people in their own country who they can deliver the channels to without violating their contracts. (DISH and DirecTV both have non-US services, DISH for Mexico and DirecTV for Latin America, which feature a separate channel lineup from their US offerings.)

    There are people who work around the rules ... we don't support that or discuss how to do that on our forum.

    Technically DISH uses some foreign satellites to deliver their content to their customers. Not all of DISH's satellites operate under a US license ... but DISH has obtained FCC permission for their customers to receive DISH's programming from the select foreign satellites DISH uses. (Nearly everything US broadcasters do must be with the permission of the FCC.)

    If one wanted to receive another country's satellite service the receive dish would need to be licensed by the FCC. There are a list of satellites that do not require a receive license, foreign DBS services are not on that list. (Which is why DISH and DirecTV obtain receive blanket licenses on behalf of their customers when they use Canadian or Mexican licensed satellites.)

    There are "free to air" services that are available via satellite equipment. Most of the channels are foreign, religious and other content that the channel owner has the right to distribute anywhere ... no borders involved. Broadcasters can do a lot more when the own the rights to distribute content.
     
  7. Art7220

    Art7220 Godfather

    353
    0
    Feb 4, 2004
    But if it allows me to get foreign shows that DirecTV and DN don't want to show me, I'm all for it.

    Or maybe you can tell me how long I have to wait to see Rick Mercer Report, or oh wait there's RlslogNET or Torrent. Or should I wait 25 years or however long it takes?
     
  8. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,960
    2,288
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The issue of whether or not DirecTV or DISH want to carry the content is secondary ... they need to have the right to carry the content.

    One could create a CBC America channel with Canadian shows that the channel owner has the right to distribute in the US. This would be similar to the BBC America channel ... although there is a lot of non UK shows on that channel - but the key issue is rights. BBC America has purchased or owns the US broadcast rights for what they air - and DirecTV and DISH can carry it because they have reached a retransmission agreement granting them the right to rebroadcast the feed. One just has to have the right's owner permission.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements